1

TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT

SUMMIT

NOVEMBER 17, 2014

2

SPONSORS

PLANNING PARTNERS:

CITY OF WINNIPEGWINNIPEG TRANSITEXCHANGE DISTRICT BIZECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WINNIPEG INC.GREEN ACTION CENTREDILLION CONSULTING

PRODUCED BY: SPONSORS: MEDIA PARTNERS:

3

• EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4

• KEY DISCUSSION POINTS 7 • Attendees 12 • APPENDIX 14 • Images 15 • Round Table Discussions 18 • Presentation Summaries 31 • In the News 38 • Attendee Comments 43

CONTENTS

4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Transit Oriented Development (TOD) plays an important role in cities by addressing significant and pressing transportation, housing, and environmental issues, benefitting citizens as well as communities by capitalizing on the sustainability goals of government. In turn, TOD creates more vibrant and exciting places for people.

On November 17, 2014, the Downtown Winnipeg BIZ helped to provide a platform for a Transit Oriented Development discussion in Winnipeg Manitoba. International, national and local speakers were invited to provide expertise on the topic and help create a discussion among invited guests. This summit saw representation from post-secondary educational institutions, social agencies, students, city planners, transit, architects, developers, and downtown businesses. All of these people were passionate about Winnipeg, and want to bring about positive change and development.

The inaugural Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Summit provided an opportunity to talk about TOD and how to utilize it to transform our city and down-town. The goal of the event was to talk, listen, learn and inspire Winnipeggers to discuss and create actions. Together, invited guests and speakers discussed the barriers related to Transit Oriented Development in Winnipeg and gave options on how to move past them.

The Transit Oriented Development questions discussed at the Summit and articulated in this document were considerably discussed, vetted and validated by Summit participants. Each participant at the Summit had the opportunity to contribute to each

question. The information gathered from the Summit has helped to create this document, which will be distributed to various stakeholders.

While the TOD Summit was aimed at providing a platform to foster a discussion about Transit Oriented Development in Winnipeg, it is in no way a document that provides all the answers. The goal of this document is to provide insight into some of the positive opportunities and some of the challenges that are faced with respect to TOD in Winnipeg. What is envisioned is an ongoing discussion with stakeholders.

5

DETAILS OF THE SUMMITThe TOD Summit, including round table discussions and an evening public forum, took place at the Winnipeg Art Gallery on Monday, November 17, from 9am-8pm. Attendees during the daytime round tables were invited to represent our key decision makers - including the city, province, BIZ stakeholders, architects, planners, developers, experts, the private sector, and more. The evening forum was open to the public and of our course BIZ members. Approximately 70 people attended during the day and an equal number in the evening.

We were fortunate enough to welcome three out of town speakers, Erik Backstrom, John O. Norquist and Antonio-Gomez Palacio to the summit who began their day in the main theatre, taking part in the morning introduction to TOD. Each presented a 15-20 min PowerPoint presentation focusing on the basic principles of TOD. From a local perspective we were happy to welcome Stefano Grande of the Downtown BIZ, Mayor Brian Bowman, Hazel Borys of Placemakers, Mike Pyl of the City PP&D and David Patman of Winnipeg Transit.

Following the mid-morning coffee break, attendees were assigned to one of six groups. Facilitators, consisting of Mark Cohoe, Bob Kurylko, Valdene Lawson, Erik Backstrom, Antonio-Gomez Palacio, John O. Norquist and Hazel Borys, led the group round table discussions and notes were recorded. As the groups rotated throughout various spaces in the WAG during the morning, a total of three questions were covered. Meanwhile, artists Charlie Johnson moved between groups, recording key points and making connections to later enable an artists’ interpretation of the summit’s findings (image on page 17.

After lunch, the six groups were reunited to carry on with the round table discussions, covering yet another three questions over the course of the afternoon. Following these discussions, guests assembled in the main theatre once again to hear facilitators make concluding points as to the day’s discussions.

Participants asked some questions before wrapping up and enjoying a wine and cheese reception at the WAG shortly after 3pm.

The evening forum was kicked off at 6pm with opening remarks by Councillor Wyatt. PowerPoint presentations were given by Hazel Borys, Antonio Palacio Gomez, John O. Norquist and Erik Backstrom. Marcy Markusa then hosted a panel discussion and question period.

Without the support and guidance of many partners and sponsors, the TOD Summit would not have taken shape and form.

Thanks to those who committed to taking part in open dialogue about creating a better city where people of all incomes can take full advantage of dense and vibrant neighbourhoods built for the movement of people – a city where rapid transit is at the core of people’s values for live, work, and play in their neighbourhoods.

Thanks to the many local experts who made time for the summit and are committed to utilizing TOD as a land use tool, as well as to our international speakers who gave up their time to share their stories of suc-cesses – how their own cities are being transformed into better, more vibrant places for people.

Thanks to the Downtown BIZ Transportation Committee and Rapid Transit Steering Committee members for guiding the development of this summit.

Our appreciation is extended on behalf of the Downtown Winnipeg BIZ’s Management Board, staff, and our 1,300 members.

6

WHERE ARE WE NOW?TOD is not a farfetched dream. In fact, cities which people fall in love with today like Rome, Paris, Denver, Portland, Vancouver, Montreal, Calgary, Edmonton, and many more – are capitalizing on what people want, and where they want to live. The pieces are falling into place, as Winnipeg pioneers have been slowly been pressing for TOD and rapid transit in today’s marketplace.

Winnipeg is in a good place, primed to develop along its transit corridors and in a meaningful manner to create vibrancy, affordability and accessibility for Winnipeggers. TOD is primed.• Winnipeg’s Transit System is maturing• Rapid Transit is back on track• Graham Avenue Mall, Downtown’s Transit Mall is evolving and is now home to the largest drivers of economic growth in our city:• MTS Centre: Home of the Winnipeg Jets (over 1.5 million visitors per year)• Millennium Library: Home to over 1 million visitors per year• Expanding Convention Centre• Some of Downtown’s largest employers are located on its door step – Manitoba Hydro, MPI, and Winnipeg Police Service• Downtown’s largest housing development, SkyCity Centre Winnipeg is a new condo project by MADY and Fortress Real Developments• SHED, the city’s new sports, hospitality, and entertainment district• The Forks Renewal – Redevelopment of Parcel 4 lands into one of our city’s most incredibly designed mixed-use neighbourhoods that will integrate into The Forks and its surrounding neighbours. Greater ease of movement and continuity of development with the surrounding area is necessary for The Forks to become an integral part of our city.

WHERE ARE WE HEADED?Where we are headed depends on our ability to focus in on best practises and understand the TOD lessons from other cites as opposed to pursuing our dreams based on opinion and local interpretation.

Where we are headed depends on a new breed of developers, from within and out-of-town, realizing the market opportunity for such an approach. In turn, helping to create and realize the vision for our downtown tomorrow. Our hope is that this summit will simply have helped point us in the right direction.

7

• Consider quality vs quantity design • Good leadership is needed • Multi-use areas are a necessity• Create and design for a “winter city”• Need a variety of smaller places (fine grain) at street level to create community• Consider the value of developments as an incentive to expedite projects• A barrier in TOD is minimum parking. An answer could be to remove or reduce parking minimums and let the market decide.• Need certainty around when/where rapid transit is going. Without certainty, development doesn’t happen as expected.• Create attractive design for everyone• There needs to be a commitment to great places• Thinking multi modal in the design and the usage is essential. Cycling, vehicle, pedestrian, transit. • Key funding tools must be developed• Put transit where TOD can happen (not Hydro corridors)• Redevelop surface lots to higher/better use• Mixed use parking is essential (retails, arts, condo)• There must be a changing attitude around paying for parking• There should be active transportation

KEY DISCUSSION POINTS

standards set in the city of Winnipeg • Making connections to TOD centers is important, connecting to the network• Lack of policy direction is a barrier• There are mixed messages to developers• Clear and straight forward plan is needed

Throughout the day, decision makers and the public discussed many opportunities and challenges in moving TOD forward collaboratively in our city. Some of the points that were mentioned repeatedly and that were often found within multiple questions were:

8

Question 1

“HOW WILL WINNIPEG FINANCE OR ESTABLISH NEW FUNDING SOURCES TO FILL EXISTING GAPS? HOW CAN WE DEVELOP NEW FINAN-CIAL TOOLS AND PARTNERSHIPS FOR TOD IN THE LONG-TERM?”

Key Points

• Use funding tools that influence behaviour such as gas tax, parking rates, etc.• Implement TIF (tax increment financing) and choose carefully where you incentivize• Dedicate taxes to specific transit projects• City could come to table with off-site services• Use a suburban model of financing for infill projects• Think of transit as an investment that we cannot afford to ignore (including to Health Care)• Increase Federal taxes (not City taxes)• Contribute agreements for infrastructure• Don’t leave federal government in charge of all decision making• Final decision on routing of RT line – before developers invest• Thinking/policy direction can lack continuity• Create intensity and critical mass

Question 2

“WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TRAN-SIT-ADJACENT AND TRANSIT ORIENTED DE-VELOPMENT? HOW DO LAND USES WITHIN WINNIPEG’S DEVELOPMENT BY-LAW HELP OR HINDER?”

Key Points

• Transit Adjacent Development (TAD) tends to focus on building heights and parking integration• Transit Oriented Development (TOD) caters to transit users and prioritizes pedestrians• TOD as opposed to TAD is about lifestyle and opportunity development• Current land uses that hinder TOD include enormous surface parking lots permitted for suburban retail• Suburban development should require a variance (and not the other way around)!• Winnipeg’s development by-law needs to focus on infill and be committed to the creation of great places (outward focus, good pedestrian connectivity and where people feel safe)

ROUND TABLE DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

For detailed discussion notes please see appendix p. 18

9

Question 3

“AT WHAT SCALE OR DENSITY DOES TOD WORK? HOW DO WE MOST EFFECTIVELY MAKE TOD PART OF WINNIPEG’S VISION FOR GROWTH AND DESIGN EXCELLENCE?”

Key Points

• TOD should be seen as a village with c onnections• The corner of River and Osborne is a good local example of successful TOD• Look to other prairie cities with exemplary TOD and note how they began• Need a variety of smaller places (fine grain) at street level to create community• Smaller scale can work for TOD (i.e., doesn’t need to include high rise apartments, but rather 2-4 stories high)• Walkability and a feeling of safety is key, including the promotion of street level activity• Combining several types of TOD along the corridor can be a key to success (employment TOD, residential TOD, true mixed- use TOD)• Focus on residential first as retail requires density for success• Form based code is important to ensure the first floor of the condo or apartment is adaptable to commercial in the long-term• Need certainty around when/where rapid transit is going, since without certainty, development doesn’t happen as expected• Need to build on what we have, instead of incorporating new things. At the same time there needs to be options to design different road sections based on use / need and context • Incentivize TOD to fast track development that meet particular requirements

Question 4

“WHAT ARE THE RISKS AND UNCERTAINTIES THAT WINNIPEG DEVELOPERS FACE IN TOD? WHAT ARE THE STRATEGIES TO MOVE FOR-WARD?”

Key Points

RISKS & UNCERTAINTIES• Winnipeg’s cold climate• Lack of familiarity and understanding of TOD (i.e., what’s allowed, what’s not allowed?)• Uncertainty in the plans / transit facilities as well as older policy• Gaps in commitment and investment in the public realm (including good Urban Design)• Attitudes that aren’t accepting of infill development (NIMBY) and the perception that families need a car• Common notion that living in suburbia means “you have succeeded”• Bus stigma• Lack of critical mass with other developments• Difficulties in bank financing

STRATEGIES• City has a role to promote infill development more• Encourage awareness of TOD (including general public and banks)• Gain a better understanding of why people choose to live in suburbia• Establish certainty in transit planning and timing• Provide incentive dollars for TOD• Infrastructure costs front ended by the city• Strategically prioritize transit nodes and corridors• Put transit where TOD can happen • Corridor planning can allow more certainly for developers• Consider pre zoning for infill• Try to re-zone properties to face high density development • Grow the first TOD area rather than working

10

on three areas at the same time • Cost benefit analyses developed to make the case for TOD• Shorten the lead time (including financing, zoning, banks, permits)

Question 5

“HOW DOES WINNIPEG BEST INTEGRATE PARKING AND ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION INTO TOD?”

Key Points

STRATEGIES• Mixed use of parking spaces (retail, arts, residential)• Bike lock up facilities and storage are needed • More education on active transportation options• Be more pedestrian friendly• “Winter City” guidelines are needed, promoting and designing for Winnipeg winters• Expand active transportation network and connectivity• Redevelop surface lots to higher/better use• Need incentives to redevelop• TIF’s = tax incentive financing• Make parking less affordable “on-street”• Focus on providing initiatives to entice amenities to locate near TOD to promote the reduced use of vehicles• Use downtown parking standards at TOD locations• Cash-in-lieu funds to develop parking structures• Hidden parking (but well signed)• Removing 24 hour stalls from private operations • Phase, staged development with consideration for parking/transit service mix at each stage (to be considered by Transit and developers)• Making connections to TOD centers, connecting to the network (like crossing Pembina)

• Need to coordinate between different strategies that affect use of streets (parking car and bike vs patios)• Look for similar contexts (city-wise) to find inspiration (less looking to Europe, more like Minneapolis)

RISKS & UNCERTAINTIES• How to change transportation patterns• Policy documents aren’t translating fast enough given the need for resources• Network vision is good, now we need a funding scheme• “Next Bus” information is needed at stations and adjacent to buildings• Senior leadership needs to be champions of doing things the right way• This is a Winnipeg problem. Will new leadership depoliticize the process?• Professional developers and administration should be allowed to move more freely, in order to get the job done quickly, and to the most benefit for everyone• Active Transportation standards are not part of the City Of Winnipeg. It should be a requirement• Active Transportation paths don’t always count towards parking dedication• Zoning rules need to “fit” parking needs

11

Question 6

“WHAT POLICIES CAN OUR NEWLY ELECTED COUNCIL FORM TO REMOVE BARRIERS TO TOD AND CREATE INCENTIVE FOR ITS USE?”

Key Points

• Create a clear vision• Do the 1st Rapid Transit line well (quality vs quantity) and showcase success. • World trends – policy friendly for developer• Need public consultation to ensure transparent process• Create an implementation plan with: 1. Timeframe / phases 2. Budget with clear projections 3. Ancillary measures for unknowns 4. Administration roles (stick with a plan) 5. Infrastructure plan (integrate water, waste, public works) alternate utilities / storm water, etc. 6. Dashboard to clearly see if we are succeeding or failing 7. Get land use right to make TOD happen with more proactive City of Winnipeg planning efforts, instead of being reactive to developers’ plans 8. Vision keeper – instead of deal-makers• Respected by all levels of the development community • Embed planning language in our culture. Understand the role of place-making 9. Implement a complete streets policy• City should consider the value of developments as an incentive to expedite projects• TIF to help finance TOD. Establish a TOD zone / zoning public realm, connectivity, human scale, mixed-use, density• Incentives don’t necessarily have to be monetary (must reduce time. 6 months for suburban but more than 1 year for infill, but with bigger costs)

Change things so that infill developers are willing to build more than once. Make it for more than mavericks.• Existing by-law is out of character for our Winnipeg neighbourhoods. Translate ‘Our -Winnipeg’ into a clear development by-law with clear rules• Parking minimums must be removed

12

ATTENDEESDAY EVENT – ROUND TABLE DISCUSSIONS

Martin Maykut - Streetside Scott Stephanson - Longboat David Boles - Genstar Rocky Kalsi - Ranjjan Developments Andrew Marguess - B&M Land Tim Comack - Ventura Development Matt Glavin - Terracon Development Eric Vogan - Qualico Communities Karampaul Sandhu - Sandhu Development Elliott Hannam - Qualico Communities Johanna Chabluk - CV Ian Frank - HTFC Dudley Thompson - Prairie Arch Mike Moore - MB Home Build Tom Theissen - BOMA Geoff Zywina - B & M land Lawrence Bird - B & M land Susan Russell - McGowan Russell Hazel Borys - Placemakers Brenden Solico - Dillion Constantina Douvris - HTFC Candace Karhut - Republic Arch. Bob Downs - Shindico Chris Baker - MMM Ken Wimble - MMM Johanna Hurme - Rudy Braun - Huntington Capital Bharana Bonde - Derek Manaigre - Exchange Biz Paul Jordan - FNP Angela Mathieson - FNP Michelle Finley - City of Winnipeg Randy Topolinski - WPA

David Patman - Transit Johnathan Borland - Transit Terry Zdan - Gov MB MIT David Duncan - Gov MB MIT Richard Mahe - PP&D Mike Pyl - PP&D Braiden Smith - PP&D Bjorn Radstrom - Transit Erica Vido - Gov MB Transportation Ryan Arabsky - WPA Tod Nester - Manitoba Infrastructure Dr. Orly Linovski - U of M James Cook - U of M Beth McKechnie - Green Action Linda McGarva - Cohen - GendisJames Cohen - Gendis Ian Marcil - Colliers Jessie Perry - Hydro Sarah Prowse - WRHA Shelagh Graham - WRHA Anders Swanson - Green Action Centre Mark Cohoe - Bike Winnipeg Susan Algie – Winnipeg Architecture FoundationAri Driver - Perfume Paradise Derek Young Lisa Bright - Artis Reit

13

ATTENDEES – EVENING FORUM

Amanda McNeilGenny HarmesMark HeadSteve LafleurGavin WilliamsonFernando Velarde TrejoMark VoucheBrenden BonanJasreen SidhuScott Stirton + other – stanteeRyan KrahnMichael LucenkinRobin EdgeRyan LitovikchZana JoyceMichael BoreskeBarbra ScheinemanJustin KozakScott MalabarJodi RutledgeJoy VibergWalter ParteniukMonica NewmanMichelle FinleyRyan SegalKrista RognessDerek YoungDouglas YoungNicholas AudetteJessie KlassenNeil ExcellMichelle KadingScott FidlerLisa RichardsBrenda SalakohJustin ZarnouskiMorgan MaclennEd InnesJose CastillMary VaneerdZach FletcherBryan GrayJoseph Kornellsen

Joshua StefaryDavid ChadwickJario ViafaraPam LucenikiwJames JaworskiBjorn RadstromMarc CohoeAnders SwansonMarcy Markusa

14

APPENDIX

15

TOD SUMMIT IMAGES - DAYTIME DISCUSSIONS

16

TOD SUMMIT IMAGES - EVENING FORUM

17

Artist Charlie Johnston’s interpretations of the TOD Summit.

18

ROUND TABLE DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

Question 1

“HOW WILL WINNIPEG FINANCE OR ESTABLISH NEW FUNDING SOURCES TO FILL EXISTING GAPS? HOW CAN WE DEVELOP NEW FINANCIAL TOOLS AND PARTNERSHIPS FOR TOD IN THE LONG-TERM?”

Discussion Notes

• Look into a National Transit Strategy• Use funding tools that influence behaviour (e.g. gas tax, parking downtown, frontage tax, road tolls)• Dedicated tax to specific transit projects / lines• TIF (tax increment financing)• Accountability is key• Survey Best Practices• Show the benefit• Free transit• Connect with Health Care• Think of transit as an investment (we cannot afford not to invest in transit)• No finance issue – just make it easier, fast track• Simplify development of sites• Remove obstacles• TOD only applies to downtown – bring it to all infill communities• Professional telling you it’s not worth their while• City is encourage to show leadership and to get behind infill development • PP&D should be given the support to plan (and should be quantitative – checklist)• Downtown tells us how something should look• Micromanagement of developments• Interpretation of criteria• Choose where you incentivize – program• Intensify development – critical mass – 10000 people in one spot – focus density• Concentrate in an area – create success• Strengthen key areas• Large downtown geographic area• SHED is also a large area• Best practices? What are other cities doing?• Glass ceiling on absorption in Winnipeg• Need to create vibrancy – will perpetuate itself• Plan Winnipeg vs Our Winnipeg references• City’s hands are often tied• Plans need to be updated• Cost of development (infill) and time to do it• Why are people building in suburbs? Cheap, space, no condo fees• Different market niches (1250 sq. ft condo vs 2000 sq ft home)

19

• Amenities in area (downtown) – families• Reduced mill rate on infill sites – greenfield and brownfield• System built on negatives and interpretation – shouldn’t vs shalls• Planners should be administrators of the plan

TOOLS: • Come to table with off-site services• Use suburban model of financing to infill• Antiquated approach to density with an operating system for Downtown (FAR calculations and formulas)• With planning for area• Developer needs to blaze a trail but plans and zoning bylaws tend to be outdated• Increase Federal taxes (not City taxes)• Contribute agreements for infrastructure• Don’t leave Feds in charge• Carbon tax-earmark for environmental initiate for Active Transportation, TOD• Buy land – core stuff, ROW’s• Regulatory changes• Certainty and timing of Transportation plan – fund certainty into transportation delivery – implementation• Final decision on routing of RT line – before developers invest• No proper cost benefit analysis created on Parker lands• Developer is not part of the decision making process (ie. Choice of station site etc.)• Municipal governance reforms (Project Object Model - POM) – lift burden off property tax for funding (ie. For transportation)• Transportation needs to be heavily funded (roads and transit)• We are doing the minimum with Rapid Transit – “long term pledge without money behind it”• Need long range pledge for City of Winnipeg – Parking Authority, changes on a four year cycle• No work being done on development of tools and facilitating them through regulatory reforms (research, pilot/test, change by-laws)• Not enough parking capacity – City of Winnipeg• Regional thinking – need the overarching parking• No continuity of thinking/policy direction• When do I make my investment?• Can neighbourhoods be made into villages?• Can Portage Avenue be a TOD corridor? Amenities and density does exist.• If you have five opportunities – where do you put your eggs – create intensity and critical mass• Portage Avenue mass transit study (old) – because ratio 4:1• LRT vs BRT – lowest election rate in?• Edmonton spent $50 million /km• Cap construction costs is the big cost• LRT not viable here; bus decision has been made• Maybe electric buses in the future?• Developers should pay for it (ie. Vancouver (option 1))• If they get to build denser, then there is more return for them• Should contribute towards public realm improvements• What share should City of Winnipeg contribute? Balance?

20

• Transportation authorities – certain powers of taxation, revenue resources (ie. Translink in Vancouver)• Municipalities are a creation of the Project Object Model (POM) – greater powers of taxation, and revenue sources such as Translink• Seattle - $60 /car goes to transit / year and less for lower income people• Need POM on board• Referendum – could be v. divisive (urban vs suburban)• Good for environment• Wean people off cars • Capitol region committee – not active?• Will because very important• Should have taxing authority• Covers long term funding issue – you know how much money will be coming in the second year• Different from 1 time stimulus funding (like the AT funding)• Education is an important component• The numbers are too big /overwhelming• New era with new Mayor now• Need champion, leadership• Need to get the messages out about what is in the City’s plans, TOD handbook, etc, (policies – social marketing)• Not presented very well – old school way (book on a shelf)• Needs to be presented in a catchy way• The public don’t know what the City of Winnipeg’s policies are – not actively engaged, no communication association, very high level discussions needed

Question 2

“WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TRANSIT-ADJACENT AND TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOP-MENT? HOW DO LAND USES WITHIN WINNIPEG’S DEVELOPMENT BY-LAW HELP OR HINDER?”

Discussion Notes

• Changing focus to infill• Can be more time consuming• Spec builds downtown (residential)• Some mixed use• Depends on pre-selling• Starting to see more true change• Historically Winnipeg has been a minimal growth city• Community resistance to infill• Community engagement can be difficult, hard to get timing right• TOD – priority primarily pedestrians• Barrier to TOD includes rail line between transit and development• Need follow up discussion to identify and address barriers to TOD• Mixed messages to developers (Our Winnipeg vs projects passed)• Discrepancies between city departments can be challenging• Uncertainty – making a big investment, don’t want to be stuck with land when changes are made

21

• History of TOD in Winnipeg – a looooong process!• For TAD city looks at height and parking• Urban design – look to what works in Winnipeg (e.g. Osborne Village)• Should be more form than façade• We now build more multiple family housing than single unit developments• Affordability is a driver• Shift from single unit within last 10 years• New single unit home (420-450 K)• Resale = 250K• Still affordable by comparison• New families and “downsizers” moving into higher density• TOD – development is focused on transit and caters to transit users• Competitive with walking to car in parkade• TOD vs TAD is lifestyle and opportunity development• Spectrum of options• Requires commitment to great places• Outward focus, feel safe, good pedestrian connectivity• Don’t be cheap• Needs to be convenient and attractive• How do we get buy in for costs?• Who pays?• Property tax benefit• Demographics – aging baby boomers – mobility• Younger families – affordability• Innovative options – car share• Market quality of life• Walk score has been a selling point in Edmonton• Bus technology vs rail (or other) technology• Bus is practical and not consistent while rail is sexier and more expensive• U-pass over time has potential to change habits (ridership, choice of housing and neighbourhood, etc.)• Parking requirements need to reflect TOD and Transit Oriented Areas.• Regulation regarding heritage redevelopment is “hindering” Exchange District• Too many restriction on heritage buildings• Current land use barriers• Feeder road and BRT too downtown focused• Hub and spoke network of BRT• Community committee tends to not approve the higher densities that make TOD work: land use is still too political and suburban retail: surrounded by lakes of parking• Make Lilac St legal again!• Min parking requirements sends mixed signals for TOD• Should have to apply for a variance for suburban development, not the other way around

Question 3

“AT WHAT SCALE OR DENSITY DOES TOD WORK? HOW DO WE MOST EFFECTIVELY MAKE TOD PART OF WINNIPEG’S VISION FOR GROWTH AND DESIGN EXCELLENCE?”

22

Discussion Notes

Land Use to Enable a Village:• What should Winnipeg TOD look like?• River/Osborne• What works for green space?• Demographic pressures?• How did other cities begin?• User focused / experience based• Based on travel distance• Clear land use laws• Transportation sequencing and choices• Fire trucks in – garbage out• People and goods in and out• Parking• Land use first - transportation second?• TOD as a village and connections to others • Development oriented transit• What prairie cities have exemplary TOD? (Where something physically stops the sprawl)• Who’s in charge to make TOD happen? We need to encourage a strong City of Winnipeg!• Development costs charging to incentivize TOD• Adjacent neighbourhoods only connected and arterials are transit impervious • Connect the neighbourhoods• Limited return on investment (ROI), outside of transit served core• Energize places with art, music, pop up retail without high rents (gen-y sorts of places)• Risk capital is what’s happening now (Sherbrook)• Follow the hipsters (Actual gallery, Hut K)• Selling successes to bigger investors• Nurture the risk oblivious or rick impervious (big fan festival, Fringe Festival)• But also nurture risk averse (Santa Claus Parade)• But leverage with stores open!• Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) vs character-based development• Mixed traffic congestion• Portage and Main opening an example of mixed traffic challenges• Parking bylaw currently requires over parking• TOD families may have 0-1 car so consider either parking deductions, or remove all together and let the market decide• Equity will not choose to under park• Deal with cultural barriers and tendencies

Choose: • Exemplary development• Code vision• Flexibility• Eight stories okay• Timed development

23

Scale:• Downtown parking is too cheap and abundant• Increase housing downtown• Chicken and egg• Pace of transit expansion• Pace of TOD development• The streetscape does not resolve the problems with the wrong location of the transit stop• Doesn’t have to be higher rise apartments (example – Ellice, Sargent – 2 to 4 level existing development served by successful Transit routes)• Portage Ave – Some parcels are underutilized, and there is an opportunity for larger seven level development served by existing Portage services• TOD doesn’t have to be very high density• For Rapid Transit to be successful, smaller scale can work• Promote activity at the street level. This is limited in some new areas where properties back on to main roadways (example – residential fences along Warde Ave, Dakota St)• Two to four storey development in Toronto• Commercial / mixed use development is difficult in suburbs (issues with density, access is far away)• Range of TOD – 1 building, neighbourhood main street, neighbourhood scale, 50 story tower• Can’t replicate Osborne Village for every TOD (not enough density, not enough population)• Need an incremental growth plan for future• Mix of TOD - several types along the corridor (employment TOD, residential TOD, true mixed use TOD)• What comes first – transit or development?• Form - empower small business and development to get it right• Walkability is key• Sherbrook St – How did it revitalize and how do we replicate that for TOD?• It starts to build on itself (trend of bike lane and residential development)• How do we replicate this trend in new development?• Focus on residential first as retail requires density• Form based code – ensure first floor of the condo or apartment is adaptable to commercial in the long term• Off Rapid Transit corridor TOD – Corydon Ave (bus connections to the South-West Rapid Transit Corridor (SWRTC))• Need a variety of smaller places (fine grain) at street level to create community• How many Corydons can you have? As many as you need – need services for daily life within reasonable distance• Pearls on a necklace• People seem to like Osborne Village but we’re not building things like that anymore – developed over time• People seem to like making many stops along the way on their commute home. How can we accommodate this in different modes?• Need certainty around when/where rapid transit is going, since without certainty development doesn’t happen as expected• Currently a tiny corridor fragment that doesn’t demonstrate potential of TOD• Some of our neighbourhoods are examples of TOD from the 1920’s• Permeability of neighbourhood that’s connected to TOD hub (no barriers between station/stop and potential users)

24

• People need to feel safe/easy to get to walkability in the vicinity• Need to be more flexible with our rules to be able to promote AT (ie. Mid block crossings)• Trying to build on what we have, instead of incorporating new (maybe roads don’t need to be so wide). Need options to design different road sections based on use/need /context (not always most efficient according to engineers)• Would the idea of TOD sell?• Time/delays aren’t appealing to developers• Showcase – develop a site showing best, sharing risk, see if market is there• Takes a long time to push out transit service to a new development (resources)• City of Winnipeg needs to market what’s available (lifestyle, community base social marketing)• Collaborative effort to identify what makes TOD effective• Incentivize TOD to fast track developments that meet particular requirements• TOD has onerous planning requirements• Responsibility for developing planning framework for a large area often falls to developers

Question 4

“WHAT ARE THE RISKS AND UNCERTAINTIES THAT WINNIPEG DEVELOPERS FACE IN TOD? WHAT ARE THE STRATEGIES TO MOVE FORWARD?”

Discussion Notes

Barriers / Challenges:• Parking requirements• Funding from banks• Perception of need for car from families• Lack of familiarity, understanding• NYMBY• A firm plan (certainty)• Older policy (e.g. secondary plans)• Locating transit away from TOD opportunities• Cold Climate (coldest city in the world mentality)• Cost to user• Low density• Reliable transit (convenient)• Not efficient route planning• Youth retention• Political (less and less)• “Bus” stigma• Long distances between modes and destinations (to stops)• Perception of what the public wants and then the reality• Buy in from the public• Certainty of transit facility – need all components• Critical mass – other developments• Passing through existing neighbourhoods• Good Urban Design – outward connections

25

• Commitment and investment by city in the public realm (infrastructure dollars –investment, pedestrian connectivity)• Pleasant commute from A to B• Re-education• City support – community based travel marketing, amenities, assets, what’s along the way and C destination• Cost benefit analysis, quality of life (economic benefits, social and environmental)• Transit services is an integral part of development planning• Do we plan for villages?• Is the public accepting of high density? Cultural shift needed• Has to be attractive, great Urban Design, planned well• How will people give up their yard, open space, private space• Needs to be a great place to live where people want to be• Developers should work with city from the start (we should look at a different process)• Leadership for City – what’s allowed, what’s not allowed• High density doesn’t have to be a twenty storey tower• Developer showcase needed• Bike to transit – best of both worlds (private space plus close to TOD)• Entrenched attitudes - change attitudes and behaviours to accept the infill development (NIMBY)• Factors – noise, traffic (cars and people), reduced real estate value• Lack of long term political commitment (four year cycles)• Higher initial costs with TOD• Cost of servicing infill development high (need a cost benefit analysis)• Upgrade sewers, drainage (infrastructure generally)• Developers end up front ending all costs for all four corners• To fix this could the city not front end the cost?• FRY – city front ending some of the costs, like drainage• Long lead time – financing, zoning, banks, permits• Time delays in permitting an issue• Uncertainty about Rapid Transit Line (until shovels in the ground)• Hesitancy – will people actually use it?• Developers – will units be marketable?• Everything o/s the property line – water, easements, appls• When can I start vs a new, greenfield site with all services• Rear yard set back on a 1 year old building – makes sense?• Developers’ obligation – profit to owners• City – promote more infill development• Real Estate Investment Trust (REITs), pension funds (income stream expected – return to shareholders)• How do we shift demand to infill and TOD• Make suburbia more expensive?• Understand why they live there – space, schools, yards, community centres• Certain segment of market – lifestyle diffs, family without a car, urban lifestyle, no kids, nightlife• Doesn’t exist? Or is it just opportunity is not there?• Winnipeg mentality – suburban living means “I have succeeded”• Huge opportunity with South-West Rapid Transit Corridor – could challenge whole view of city – potential• Easy links to other parts of the city

26

• Do it right• What type of development do we need there to make sure transit is successful• Here we put transit on an existing arterials (like Pembina to the U of M)• With other cities they put transit where people go, not where a corridor is available• What are the best corridors?• Is Leg 1 for the South-West Rapid Transit Corridor faster?

Strategies:• Awareness, public and banks• Certainty in transit planning and timing• Sustained funding for transit• Incentive $ for TOD• Strategically prioritize transit nodes and corridors• Update Secondary Plans for TOD• Put transit where TOD can happen (not Hydro corridors)• Think multi-modal• Promote density• Diversity of housing type and ownership• Coordinate land use and transit planning• Make transit a “quality of life”• Prioritize walkability around stations• Cost? Cost benefit analysis re social, economic and environmental• City incentive – Solid Waste management (different approaches to infrastructure - life cycle costing pays for itself over time)• Make first leg of Rapid Transit successful (showcase)• Grow the first TOD area rather than three areas at the same time (focus on activity, efforts, coordination)• Need to know where the Rapid Transit route will be and get everyone using the Rapid Transit line first• Economic models (pay as you save, asset costing such as district heating)• Try to rezone props to face high density development • Planning Strategies? Plan for Development and Operation (PDO)? Zoning bylaw – what’s the best planning tool?• Pre-zone for infill?• City front end costs for infrastructure and or studies• The multi-family infill grant program in downtown (per door) for commercial in fill areas, kick start to move toward critical mass• Incentives for small business development – diversity, local businesses (cover the risk)• Downtown BIZ and Centre Venture doing pilot pop up stores• Winnipeggers are looking for the bargain – only spend $5 per visit• Make city attractive to young people• Chicken and egg situation• City of Winkler has a buinesss incubator building• Corridor planning – more certainly for developers (and put more emphasis on Portage, St. Mary Road)• Graham Mall – retail development (small scale, successful)• Opportunity with more planning happening at city (like with Corydon)• Lays the ground work and streamlines the process• City – development liaison coordinator position and facilitate development• Need more building height allowances – min six stories in a transit corridor

27

• Six storey has efficiencies = high rise construction• Uncertainty is huge here• Need as much clarity and leadership from city as possible• Lord Roberts – exact zoning, height, parking ratio, entries, setbacks, parameters, etc.• Developer gets little help on where sewer is, how far away does it have to be to be upgraded• Need this from elected officials• Need both parties working together• Developer comes first – buys land, etc.• Example of TOD development in Winnipeg• Extra level of zoning for those sites – Plan for Development and Operation (PDO) • Otherwise TOD is “illegal”• Can that be streamlined?• Developer wants to be told what they can do• Need leadership from city (i.e., expansion of Fort Rouge Yards (FRY) TOD area)• Should have been same Plan for Development and Operation (PDO) applied and the same rules• Lessons learned from other cities – small pockets of Toronto are similar to small pockets of Winnipeg

Question 5

“HOW DOES WINNIPEG BEST INTEGRATE PARKING AND ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION INTO TOD?”

Discussion Notes

• Parking types – private, on street, car sharing, no parking • Active transportation – walking, biking to/from transit• Need to believe that TOD will increase the demand for transit • Shared use of parking spaces could help to reduce requirements• Need to set targets for “mode share” and design for the targets• Frequency increase is an essential piece• Transit decisions are because of budget constraints• Active transportation: lighting, sense of safety long term bike parking, bike share, good bike access to the transit stations bike routes to transit ability to put a bike on the bus • Ensure adequate integration of modes of transportation• Always permit bikes to be transported on the bus• Make transit information available in shops etc.• Car-sharing – need to emphasize cost savings as a sustainable aspect with community based marketing• Expand active transportation network and connectivity• Bike lock up facilities are needed as well as storage facilities• More education on active transportation options• Be more pedestrian friendly• Manage the growth• “Winter City” guidelines are needed. Promote and design for our winter climate• Make parking less affordable “on-street”

28

• Focus on providing initiatives to entice amenities to locate near TOD to promote the reduced use of vehicles• Charge more for parking• Suburban mall has free parking• How to change transportation patterns• Redevelop surface lots to higher/better use• Need incentives to redevelop• TIF’s = tax incentive financing• Parkfree development (1.5 ps/unit)• Parking management and variances• Active transportation facilities – i.e. safe cycle tracks on Sherbrook• Complete streets – design for all potential users i.e. Edmonton (lego video)• Policy documents aren’t translating fast enough given the need for resources.• Network vision is good, now we need a funding scheme• Intermodality is needed,- using easy to use fold up bikes• Need to have year-round bike racks on buses• Need more bike parking throughout the city• “Next Bus” information is needed at stations and adjacent to buildings • Many more shelters are needed• Policies are needed to locate civic buildings and seniors buildings along transit corridor• Electric buses, bring them inside buildings. Clean• Best practices for parking are needed• Senior leadership needs to be champions of doing things the right way, not rolling over. This is a Winnipeg problem. Will new leadership depoliticize the process?• Annual transit pass as alternative to parking at new developments• Use downtown parking standards at TOD locations• Cash-in-lieu funds are needed to develop parking structures• * Connectivity – I want my own separate infrastructure, not just a special lane. The bike community is varied – not homogeneous.• Active transportation network that gives great connectivity to all destinations for all users, regardless of their comfort level• Professional developers and administration should be allowed to move more freely, in order to get the job done quickly, and to the most benefit for everyone• Need more car co-ops• Zoning rules to “fit” parking needs• Contrarian view – provide parking to get density• Mixed use parking (retail, arts, condo)• Hidden parking (but well signed)• Better parking rules• Parking shouldn’t reduce people on the street (safety, vibrancy, viability)• Bike connectivity to get from A to B• Education on bike routes and bike safety• Protective bike paths• Separate / understand winter biking needs• More bike storage• Removing 24 hour stalls from private operations • Parking spots should be shared (business / residential)

29

• Access competing needs, balancing short/long term parking needs• Work together to identify potential opportunities• Promoting turnover of on-street parking• Phased, staged development with consideration for parking/transit service mix at each stage (to be considered by Transit and developers)• Placement of parking and usage is important• Surface lots vs parkade – City of Winnipeg doesn’t need to impose timelines, it will develop as the demand is there• Changing attitude around paying for parking• Integrating Active Transportation – passive park space as a corridor• Consistency can depend on a councilor• Active Transportation standards not in City Of Winnipeg requirements• Active Transportation paths don’t always count towards park dedication• Making connections to TOD centers, connecting to the network (like crossing Pembina)• Include walking/biking as part of transportation plan• Balancing Active Transportation infrastructure and on –street parking • Need to coordinate between different strategies that affect use of streets (parking car and bike vs patios)• Look for similar contexts (city-wide) to find inspiration (less looking to Europe, more like Minneapolis)• Support for Active transportation at transit stations – connectivity between networks, amenities

Question 6

“WHAT POLICIES CAN OUR NEWLY ELECTED COUNCIL FORM TO REMOVE BARRIERS TO TOD AND CREATE INCENTIVE FOR ITS USE?”

Discussion Notes:

• Remove parking minimums• Look at success in other cities• Do the 1st RT line well – showcase success• Quality vs quantity• Medium to low-medium density (ie. Waterfront Drive)• Emphasis should be on providing municipal infrastructure instead of a cash subsidy• Need to ensure that policies such as “right to light” are in place to give people confidence that their standards of living would not be diminished• Use transit station design to inspire• Perception – change it = wow factor• World trends – policy friendly for developer• Not money but efficiency!• Who takes the lead?• City should consider the value of developments as an incentive to expedite projects• Tangible benefits• Sell them to policy makers• Immigration tied to TOD – small business connection• TIF to help finance TOD. Establish a TOD zone / zoning public realm, connectivity, human scale, mixed-use, density• Consider residential density bonuses to build the stations

30

• Consider non-BRT station areas that are ripe for development Change zoning by-laws for these too, so they are transit ready• Barriers – existing by-law is out of character for our Winnipeg neighbourhoods• Need public consultation to ensure transparent process• Barrier – implementation – clear path and realize tradeoffs• Barriers – Our Winnipeg document may be out of sync with the development by-law from the TOD handbook• Barriers – nightmare of net increased costs of infill development, thanks to a quagmire of policies that are not legally enabled. Change the by-laws!• Incentives don’t necessarily have to be monetary (must reduce time. 6 months for suburban but more than 1 year for infill, but with bigger costs) Change things so that infill developers are willing to build more than once. Make it for more than mavericks• Barrier – minimum parking – get rid or reduce minimums and let the market decide• What policies can city council use to remove barriers and create incentives?• Buy Peg-City car share membership instead of providing full parking requirements for condos• Help city get into an administrative role with clear rules. “Stop making me send the city colour swaths” – “stop making me implement one city councilors vision as part of the city”.• Translate Our Winnipeg into a clear development by-law with clear rules• City needs to stop changing their minds. Create a clear vision• Make a plan that can be funded (reasonable costs)• Create an implementation plan with: 1. Timeframe / phases 2. Budget with clear projections 3. Ancillary measures for unknowns 4. Administration roles (stick with a plan) 5. Infrastructure plan (integrate water, waste, public works) alternate utilities / storm water etc. 6. Dashboard to see clearly if we are succeeding or failing 7. Get land use right to make TOD happen with more proactive city of Winnipeg planning efforts, instead of being reactive to developers ‘plans. 8. Vision keeper – instead of deal-makers Respected by all levels of the development community. Embed planning language in our culture. Understand the role of place-making 9. Implement a complete streets policy.

31

TOD – Who and Why? Presented by Erik Backstrom – Senior TOD Planner, City of Edmonton

Erik Backstrom, Senior TOD Planner with the City of Edmonton, presented a power point presentation titled, TOD – Who and Why? at the November 17th TOD Summit in Winnipeg.

According to Backstrom, in order to create better cities we must allow for a greater integration of the eco-nomic, social and environmental conditions. Devel-opment needs to occur downtown. Backstrom says that development that is occurring away from our city centres has negative impacts on our cities. The costs are higher for construction and maintenance of roads, infrastructure and transportation. The costs are also higher for healthcare as people fight against obesity, high blood pressure, heart disease and diabetes. Tak-ing alternative modes of transportation promotes healthier lifestyles. According to Backstrom, our society is changing. Youth don’t feel the need to leave home to feel socially connected. They already have this with their smart phone devices and wireless technology. There is less of a need to obtain a driver’s license because of this, and so they are depending more on transit for transporta-tion and living in walkable communities. Backstrom says that because we have found new ways to change our single purpose objects into multi-purpose objects, it is time that we also design our cities this way. Cities are multi-functional, the areas and neighborhoods should also be mixed-use. Areas should not be zoned to be only residential or business zoned. Mixed use is the best for cities. According to Backstrom the benefits of living in more compact and mixed use areas for residents are:

• Increased transportation choices• Fewer and shorter auto trips• Lower personal transportation costs• Easy access to daily needs• Improved health through increased physical activity• Increased household disposable income

(related to lower transportation costs)• Increased housing choice including a variety of more affordable housing types• Increased public safety (more lively areas, more people)• Creates opportunities to live and work

For the City, the benefits are:

• Increased transit ridership and revenue• More efficient use of infrastructure like transit, sewers & other services• Reduced air pollution and energy use• Revitalization of neighbourhoods• Protection of existing and mature neighbourhoods (while providing opportunities for revitalization)• Conservation of open space resources• Enhanced local economic development• Increased land values (and property taxes)• Improved public places

For the Private Sector, the benefits are:

• Increased value of land adjacent to LRT• New residential development opportunities aligned with changing demographics• New, more sustainable office location opportunities• New retail opportunities• Strong public policy framework supporting development• High return on investment (ROI) and strong value retention & growth on investment over time

POWERPOINT PRESENTATION SUMMARIES

32

PRESENTATION SUMMARY

The Opportunity of Transit Urbanism from March 2014 Municipal World, By Antonio Gomez-PalacioAntonio Gomez-Palacio, Principle at Dialog in the City of Toronto, presented a power point presentation titled Transforming Cities at the November 17th TOD Summit in Winnipeg. Below is a document with similar content, provided by Mr. Gomez-Palacio.

Increasingly, cities are investing in transit as a means to transform their communities and deliver on a host of city-building objectives. Conventional transit goals are expanding to address the promise of liveable communities and environmental improvement, of economic and social development, as well as of quality living and public health. This represents a paradigm shift, which I will ceremoniously coin as “Transit Ur-banism.”

This more rounded vision is fuelled by a growing number of success stories, often in cities that are considered lofty vacation destinations such as Lyon, Copenhagen, Melbourne, and New York. And now, a number of unsuspecting Canadian cities have recognized the potential and are taking the initiative: Mississauga, Edmonton, Calgary, Hamilton, and others. Will they get it right? Can they truly deliver? The answer to these questions will depend on the extent of the commitment and vision of each city.

Ultimately, transit investment only makes sense when coupled with a comprehensive strategy for directing growth – an urban structure – and a public realm that supports walking, active transportation, and transit use. Simply put, if there is not a critical mass of rid-ers, transit will fail. Hence, Transit-Urbanism is the focused imperative to comprehensively address the integration of transit, land use, and urban design.Why now?

Cities are faced with a triple-whammy “crisis”: An economic imperative – Current day revenue sources pale in comparison to the ever-increasing cost of delivering municipal services – municipalities need to make better decisions and account for the “true cost” of delivering services.

A social imperative – Increasingly, younger genera-tions are opting out of car-dependant lifestyles. For those who cannot relocate, issues of affordability, social disenfranchisement, ethnic divisions, and even youth unemployment are often exasperated by the isolation of suburbs and urban ghettos.An environmental imperative – An indulgence with single-occupancy driving has placed an environmental price-tag on energy, land, infrastructure, and public health.

What does it mean?

Individuals are similarly driven by trying to answer: “what does it all mean to my quality of life, and that of my children, and to my livelihood?”

Quality of life – Increasingly, people (think of young professionals and “empty nesters”) are choosing lifestyles that are not car-dependant, increasing their disposable income. Walking to work is becoming a status symbol.

Economic development – Municipalities, private developers, universities, and home-buyers have come to realize and reliable transit is a bonus for property values and urban development.

Public health – Active transportation is now widely recognized as a lifestyle.

Where are the pitfalls?

What is needed to succeed in delivering on the Transit Urbanism promise? Simply put, we must break down the silos between disciplines, commit to common priorities, pay attention to detail – and have political leadership.

It is deceivingly easy for decision transit can be achieved by delivering a transit system alone. If people don’t choose to walk to a transit station, however, transit will not work. So, when “push comes to shove” in negotiating bottom lines in budgets or the alloca-tion of space within a street right-of-way, it is impera-tive to understand that transit facilities themselves are only part of a picture. If a critical mass of people does

33

not live and work and study and shop within walking distance of a transit station, transit will not work. The picture must be completed by transit-supportive build-ings and a transit-supportive public realm. If driving a car is cheaper and more reliable, convenient, and at-tractive than using alternative modes of travel, transit will not work. Common mistakes and risks include the following.

Wanting to maintain (or increase) current-day vehicu-lar traffic capacity - More often than not, decisions will derail towards wanting to ensure that the introduction of transit does not compromise the status quo ability of cars to use the same corridor. Introducing transit is about improving the way people – not just cars – move.

Allocating only the residual space for pedestrians – Negotiating a right-of-way is often a nail-biting exer-cise for everyone (traffic engineers, utility operators, snow plough operators, emergency services, etc.) list their “absolutely must have” technical requirements, which are then plotted out on a street section, where only the residual space is granted for the less ominous concerns of pedestrians and landscaping. To create a transit-oriented city for people, however, these priori-ties must often be transposed: prioritizing pedestrians first, then cyclists, transit, HOVs, goods movement, and single-occupancy vehicles.

Value-engineering urban design and landscaping out of the equation – Look at the most successful tran-sit systems in the world – all of them include quality urban environments. These things are connected. You cannot realize the city-building value unless you make the corresponding investment.

Not getting the density right – There is a direct corre-spondence between a transit system and the necessary ridership to support it. Building subways in low-den-sity area (existing and projected) does not make sense. It is critical to clearly understand and incentivize a critical mass of users that is scaled to the capacity of the system.

Missing the details – It is the details that set apart the good from the great. All can be for naught if the inter-

section does not have a proper crosswalk; if walking next to a building is inordinately windy; if sunlight does not reach the park during lunch time; and so on.

Lessons Learned

Experience from dozens of transit-initiated, city-build-ing projects across Canada provides some key learn-ings, as outlined below.

This is a paradigm shift, where leadership is necessary – Inherently Transit Urbanism is a move away from the status quo, and change can be threatening to some. Champions are necessary. As well, articulating the vi-sion in a way that generates public buy-in and support is essential. Difficult decisions will need to be made, and decision makers need to be well-informed believ-ers in Transit Urbanism.

Unbearable congestion can be a call to action – The more cumbersome and expensive driving becomes, the greater the interest for alternative modes. Congestion can often be a catalyst for action – it is up to decision makers to use it towards a more sustainable end.

Government’s looming insolvency can be a call to action – An economic crisis can be seized as an oppor-tunity for re-stabilizing priorities and strategies. The sooner we realize that post-war urban development patterns are unsustainable, the quicker we can commit to doing things differently.

Transit is inherently a strategic intervention – Focus-ing resources/interventions strategically around prior-ity areas – those with the greatest potential to support transit and city-building (e.g., nodes and corridors) – will both increase the transformative potential of some neighbourhoods and also reduce the threat of “change” for others.

It is about value, not cost – Inevitably, building less costs less – and this is often where we end up. How-ever, the question should not be “what does it cost?” Better questions are: “What value do I get and what is the long-term value generated?” And, if the intended objectives include attracting choice transit users and new real estate development, then we need to invest

34

today accordingly.

Everybody thinks they are different – “in my city, people drive” – Before transit is developed, the status quo will be driving. And, some people will argue that “here” is inherently different from the places where successful transit was developed, because it snows, be-cause it is cold, because people enjoy driving, etc. All of the success stories are a result of the tenacity and fortitude of people who imagined something different for their communities.

You need fewer standards and less infrastructure, more “smallness” and intuitiveness – It is easy to over-design road standards and kill the goose that lays the golden eggs in the process. Inevitably, small, compact, integrated designs are harder to deliver – as they entail hard work and negotiation. Yet, they can be signifi-cantly more rewarding.

You cannot design in a vacuum – hosting a conversa-tion is key – The more complex a project (and com-plexity is a good sign), the more it will necessitate an extended conversation with stakeholders to build and develop capacity and tailored solutions, geared for implementation.

Effectively Delivering a Transit Strategy

Transit Urbanism is not simply a technical exercise. Rather, at a more fundamental level, it is about un-derstanding the kind of place that each community is striving to become. Designs and policies must not only be broadly agreed upon, but must also be under-stood. This understanding will shape designs and the interpretation of policy, and will result in public and private initiatives that are a part of a larger whole.

Developing a common understanding and vision – A transformative process must result from ambitious efforts to institute, integrate, and culturally engrain the opportunity of a fully integrated Transit Urbanism – recognizing the importance the public realm plays in supporting transit, generating economic development, and enhancing the quality of life for all residents.Fostering a culture of collaboration – Fundamental to successful implementation is a cross-disciplinary

integration and meaningful involvement of council, city staff across departments, the local development industry, and community stakeholders. Essential to capacity building and to hosting a successful dialogue is ensuring that all stakeholders have the necessary information to meaningfully participate, presented in a manner that is accessible and engaging. As well, continuity and commitment to the vision throughout implementation is essential for success.

Design excellence and innovation – An underlying characteristic of successful systems is a commitment to design excellence that is interwoven at every point, with a concurrent commitment to economic vitality. Iteration between a highly creative team and an en-gaged and inspired public leads to support for innova-tion. It is better to build less with higher quality than to build more with poorer quality that can never be upgraded.

A sustainable, value-added urban design – Sustain-ability is about the integration of environmental, social, cultural, and economic objectives, as measured over the long term – for example, if investing in the public realm results in enhanced transit use, there is a sustainable value added. To this effect, particular attention should be paid to the overall vision, modal integration, incorporation of natural systems, and maintenance and operations requirements – with a view to achieving the greatest long-term value for all.

Conclusion

The idea of Transit Urbanism holds the promise of a higher standard of living and of more sustainable, resilient, welcoming, and healthy cities for tomorrow. However, it requires commitment and tenacity today. It requires that we come together and invest means and abilities, wholeheartedly. It requires that we think about our future differently, knowing that our actions become our legacy. Whether we like it or not, this is a paradigm shift, and we can choose to lead or we can choose to be left behind.

35

PRESENTATION SUMMARY

TOD and Land-use: What does form have to do with it? Presented by Hazel Borys Principle at Placemakers, in the City of Winnipeg, presented a power point presentation titled, TOD and Land-use: What does form have to do with it? at the November 17th TOD Summit in Winnipeg.

Hazel Borys asks the question, “Why form-based codes? Because our current laws tend to separate where we live from where we work, learn, and shop, and insist on big, fast roads to connect them all. Roads that are unfriendly to pedestrians, cyclists, and tran-sit. As a result, North Americans spend more hours in their cars than anyone on earth, and a growing number of communities are working to do something about it” says Hazel Borys.

Borys says that form base codes focus on form and secondly on use. Buildings start to shape neighbour-hoods, then neighbourhoods become denser and with high density comes mixed-use areas and walkable neighborhoods. Character based zones replace use-based zones. Borys continues to say that Instead of wide based roads that connect us to different areas but leave us with a sense of placelessness, character based areas start to become recognizable because the build-ings become closer to the street, streets are narrower, bike lanes are added and streets become safer to be a pedestrian. According to Borys, this is what helps to create communities.

Hazel Borys also discusses Transit adjacent and transit oriented development. Transit-adjacent development has large streets, large blocks, too much parking, few jobs and few public amenities. Transit-oriented devel-opment includes skinny streets, small blocks, balanced parking, plenty of jobs, housing options and a rich public realm. Transit-oriented is also highly walkable.

The way to made TOD work in our existing cities are to increase density, reduce parking, increase the public realm, mixed use, and create walkable and bike-able communities. This is why Borys suggests designing areas based on form-based codes. Why is

all of this important? Because, mixed used areas and multi-story streets generate 25x more revenue / acre than single use areas. Not only is TOD good for our communities and quality of life, but it is good for the economy as well.

36

PRESENTATION SUMMARY

Land use planning and TOD in Winnipeg: An Overview, presented by Mike Pyl with the Urban Planning Division, Winnipeg Planning, Property and Development - City of Winnipeg at the November 17th TOD Summit.

According to the City of Winnipeg Urban Planning Division, the land use strategy that is being used in Winnipeg is based on the Our Winnipeg plan. The Complete Communities section of the OurWinnipeg plan includes three directions related to Rapid Transit Corridors.

Direction 1 – To promote Transit Oriented Develop-ment to accommodate growth and change at centres along Rapid Transit Corridors through integrated land-use, transportation and infrastructure planning.

Direction 2 – Support transit –supportive land use and urban form at centres along rapid transit corri-dors.

Direction 3 – Promote transit oriented development at centres along rapid transit corridors through incen-tives and innovative approaches were required.

Other sections produced in the Complete Communi-ties document include capitalizing on the proximity of major redevelopment sites to rapid transit and high frequency transit. TOD principles are going to be promoted as part of development.

Pyl says that in the TOD handbook, there are 6 im-portant principles:

1. Medium to high density development greater than the community average2. A mix of uses3. Compact, high quality pedestrian oriented development4. An active defined centre5. Innovative parking strategies6. Public leadership

There are some building and site considerations to make when designing for TOD.

a. Are the buildings and primary entrances sited and oriented to be easily accessible from the street?b. Do the designs of the buildings and the spaces around them follow direct pedestrian movement be-tween transit, mixed land uses and surrounding areas?c. Does the site’s design allow for intensification of densities over time?d. Do buildings incorporate architectural features that convey a sense of place and relate to the street and the pedestrian environment?

According to Pyl, the implementation of TOD should be based on the TOD principles as seen with the Centrepoint Development which is mixed use with a residential tower, the tower base is 3-4 stories tall.

37

PRESENTATION SUMMARY

Winnipeg Transit – Rapid Transit in Winnipeg, presented by David Patman from Winnipeg Tran-sit – City of Winnipeg at the November 17th TOD Summit.

According to Winnipeg Transit, Development of a rapid transit system is a key component of the Our-Winnipeg Development Plan and the Transportation Master Plan. The development plan is a key compo-nent in providing Winnipeg residents with alterna-tive modes of transportation and to create a transit system that will be viable for future generations. Land use policies will support growth around rapid transit nodes and encourage mixed use development. Elements of the BRT in Winnipeg:

• BRT vehicles: state-of-the-art buses• BRT provides high-frequency service through out the day• Service can be local or express (limited stop)• BRT is flexible = service can operate on both:• Physically separated transit-only roadways (“transitways”) allowing operation at high speed (80 km/h) free from traffic congestion• Regular transportation network (in mixed traffic or in bus-only diamond lanes

This can eliminate the need for transfers, resulting in more “one-seat” trips

• High quality stations along the corridor• Transit signal priority at intersections

Transit can act as an “extender” of active transporta-tion, making it possible to make longer trips by active modes than one otherwise could. We see active modes as a partner with transit, rather than as a rival. We are continually working to better integrate active modes with transit to provide a suite of alternatives to driving.

According to Winnipeg Transit, the positive socio-

economic impacts of BRT are increased ridership, reduced traffic congestion, reduced production of greenhouse gases and other air pollutants, stations are multi-modal hubs, improved access to downtown, new opportunities for transit oriented-development (TOD) at stations and other transit nodes.

The “Vision” of Rapid Transit, according to Winnipeg Transit, is to shift a higher proportion of urban travel in Winnipeg to transit by offering high speed, high reliability, high frequency, real-time passenger infor-mation, modern vehicles, a flexible route network, and beautiful stations.

38

IN THE NEWS

39

40

41

42

43

ATTENDEES COMMENTS:The Downtown Winnipeg BIZ sent out a survey to all of the participants of the TOD Summit and the following responses were some that were collected.

Question: Were there other topics that could have been included?Response: “More actionable items to move forward in a concrete way”Response: “Need some detailed discussion on the specific barriers to TOD (as seen by developers, planners, engineers and the City) and what can be done to remove those barriers”

Question: The objectives of the TOD Summit were to discuss challenges, opportunities and questions to help move TOD forward. Do you believe these objectives were met?Response: “The discussion is positive but I would be interested in working on the next steps”Response: “There was good discussion but I'm not sure whether it will help move TOD forward. Needed more City PPD staff there.”

Question: What was the most beneficial aspect of the Summit?Response: “It was great to get voices from many different positions that are affected and involved together to hear each others motivations and reservations”Response: “Mayor Bowman stating very definitely and publically that he supports TOD and rapid transit”Response: “The range of perspectives and the nature of the conversation was hugely beneficial. It isn't common to approach an issue from so many sides of the development process.”Response: “People sharing vision”

Question: Are there any comments you would like to make about the TOD Summit?Response: “The Mayor and his staff, City Councillors and their staff, and more employees from Public Works, Transit, Water & Waste and PP&D need to attend. Often the discussion seemed like "preaching to the choir", when in reality the politicians, their staff and senior policy makers need to hear the discussions as much as any-one - maybe even more so”.

44

Downtown Winnipeg BIZ426 Portage Avenue Winnipeg, MB

R3C 0C9Office Phone: 204-958-4640

Office Fax: 204-958-4630Email: info@downtownwinnipegbiz.comWebsite: www.downtownwinnipegbiz.com